Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1887-09-29
BACON OR SHAKESPEARE +?
DID THE FORMER WRIrETHEPLAYs
CREDITED TO THE LATTERf
Reasons Why Many Intelligent Students
Believe that Shakespeare Did Not
Write Them.

~s WIZ many AuteAiIkeut StuOont
Believe that Shakespeare Did No
Write Them.
The announcement Of Ignatius Don
nelly's forthcoming work OH the Ba
con-Shakespeare controversy, has
awakened renewed interest in tina,
subject. The following is a synopsis
OF paper recentlysread before the
Bacon Society of London by Mr.
Francis Fearon, which presents in q
compact form the reasons why a grea,
many intelligent student. of Shake.
speare's Plays ascribe their authorship
to Lord Bacon:
DID FRANCIS BACON WRITE "SnAKE-
sPEAKR?"
| The answer would naturally be,
"Certainly not. Can the tradition
Of three centuries be wrong? Were
our ancestors ignorant? Was Shake.
speare himself an impostor? Were
his contemporaries and friends de-
ceived? Were his SUCCESSORS of the
next generations unable to detect the
imposture?"
"Had Lord Bacon written a Play
it would have been a ponderous dis.
QUESTION in dialogue, legal or philo
sophie essay in blank verse. And
AS for his having written Shake
speare's Plays, why, good gracious,
sir! what do you mean? You are
lsbo'ing under serious mental de.
lusion."
Such, take it, is, with little ex
aggeration, the sentiment with which
he majority of persons FIRST hear the
idea propounded that the Will Shake.
speare of history did not write the
Plays which have so long gone by his
name, and that Francis Bacon did.
Nevertheless, will endeavor to do
something to convince my readers
that there is, at all events, some
method in the madness of those who,
like myself, are converts to the new
and spreading belief.
What, then, is Shakespesre's title
to the authorship? Of course, he
claimed it to himself?
Strange as it may appear, there is
no record Of his having done so; and
yet he seems to have been busting
man of the world, by no means diff
fdent; a money making manager of
theater; not u person likely to have
hid his own light under bushel, hut
one who rather would have boas ed
aud made the most of his literary at
talnments; one who, in making, a. h
did, a will, entering into details of his
chattels and effects, down to his old
bedstead, would not have been silent,
AS he was, as to his manuscripts and
literary property, which would, had
he possessed any, have been the source
of his fortune. Surely he would have
appointed literary executor, with
directions as to the revision and re.
publication OF his plays. Nine OF
the 81 plays usually credited to
Shakespeare we're never heard of I'M
til the seventh year after his death,
and al Of the 81 were in that year
published, with considerable emcnda.
tions by some mas,erhand unknown.
The 1923 Folio has SO plays. OIL
these, Is were printed then for the
first time-four more were so changed,
matured or developed as to be prac-
tioally new. Therefore, for the text
of q out of SO we are dependent on
the Folio. Of the remaining IA.
only nine are not seriously changed
from the original quartos. TAe re.
naming FIVE are SO altered that, al.
though the original quartos are good,
the altered editiops in the Folio are
alone authoritative.
But do not the Plays themselves
bear external evidence of his author
ship? Is not his name upon their?
and was this inscription ever chal-
lenged?
1t seems to be hardly understood
that seven Of Shakespeare's plays
we're originally brought out without
uuy duluOt uduIc OH tuc Title page,
that six editions of the poem, "Venus
and Adonis," and four of "Lucrece"
were also thus published. Several
editions Of the poems and of certain
plays were published before 1916. or
these editions, ~ had no authors
name on the title page.
The theory of the "Baconians" is
that the name Shakespeare was
nom de plume Of Francis Bacon, who
had good reasons for wishing that the !
Plays should not be published under
his name, and that when it was neces-
sary to put forward some authors
name, none filter or more po pular
than that of the rising and popular
theater manager could be adopted for
the purpose; that the name was pur.
posnly distinguished by the different
spelling; that the Plays were sent in,
probably anonymously, by the author
to the manager (Shakespeare) of the
Nackfriars Theatar who .d.pi.d |